Rossi A Cristina, Prefumo Federico
Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale della Murgia, Via Celentano, 42, 70121, Bari, Italy.
Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Mar;222:102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
New interest in home birth have recently arisen in women at low risk pregnancy. Maternal and neonatal morbidity of women planning delivery at home has yet to be comprehensively quantified. We aimed to quantify pregnancy outcomes following planned home (PHB) versus planned hospital birth (PHos). We did a systematic review of maternal and neonatal morbidity following planned home (PHB) versus planned hospital birth (PHos). We included prospective, retrospective, cohort and case-control studies of low risk pregnancy outcomes according to planning place of birth, identified from January 2000 to June 2017. We excluded studies in which high-risk pregnancy and composite morbidity were included. Outcomes of interest were: maternal and neonatal morbidity/mortality, medical interventions, and delivery mode. We pooled estimates of the association between outcomes and planning place of birth using meta-analyses. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, protocol number CRD42017058016. We included 8 studies of the 4294 records identified, consisting in 14,637 (32.6%) in PHB and 30,177 (67.4%) in PHos group. Spontaneous delivery was significantly higher in PHB than PHos group (OR: 2.075; 95%CI:1.654-2.063) group. Women in PHB group were less likely to undergo cesarean section compared with women in PHos (OR:0.607; 95%CI:0.553-0.667) group. PHB group was less likely to receive medical interventions than PHos group. The risk of fetal dystocia was lower in PHB than PHos group (OR:0.287; 95%CI:0.133-0.618). The risk of post-partum hemorrhage was lower in PHB than PHos group (OR:0.692; 95% CI.0.634-0.755). The two groups were similar with regard to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Births assisted at hospital are more likely to receive medical interventions, fetal monitoring and prompt delivery in case of obstetrical complications. Further studies are needed in order to clarify whether home births are as safe as hospital births.
近期,低风险妊娠女性对在家分娩产生了新的兴趣。计划在家分娩的女性的孕产妇和新生儿发病率尚未得到全面量化。我们旨在量化计划在家分娩(PHB)与计划在医院分娩(PHos)后的妊娠结局。我们对计划在家分娩(PHB)与计划在医院分娩(PHos)后的孕产妇和新生儿发病率进行了系统评价。我们纳入了根据计划分娩地点确定的2000年1月至2017年6月期间低风险妊娠结局的前瞻性、回顾性、队列和病例对照研究。我们排除了纳入高危妊娠和综合发病率的研究。感兴趣的结局包括:孕产妇和新生儿发病率/死亡率、医疗干预措施和分娩方式。我们使用荟萃分析汇总了结局与计划分娩地点之间关联的估计值。该研究方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册,注册号为CRD42017058016。我们从4294条记录中纳入了8项研究,其中PHB组有14637例(32.6%),PHos组有30177例(67.4%)。PHB组的自然分娩率显著高于PHos组(比值比:2.075;95%置信区间:1.654 - 2.063)。与PHos组女性相比,PHB组女性接受剖宫产的可能性较小(比值比:0.607;95%置信区间:0.553 - 0.667)。PHB组接受医疗干预措施的可能性低于PHos组。PHB组胎儿难产的风险低于PHos组(比值比:0.287;95%置信区间:0.133 - 0.618)。PHB组产后出血的风险低于PHos组(比值比:0.692;95%置信区间:0.634 - 0.755)。两组在新生儿发病率和死亡率方面相似。在医院协助分娩的产妇更有可能接受医疗干预措施、胎儿监测,并在出现产科并发症时迅速分娩。需要进一步研究以阐明在家分娩是否与在医院分娩一样安全。